POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

So Woody, what are the implications here? That there were 2 flights or that the official story is inaccurate? Is there proof that there were 2 separate flights?

Short answer - last sentence of the text (sorry, no time right now):

The BTS database also reveals that the tail number of the plane that took off at 8:23 was N612UA. This was United Airlines Flight 175. And there is no proof that the plane that took off at 8:13 was indeed N612UA, leading to the conclusion that the pilot only pretended to fly United Airlines Flight 175.

The BTS database also reveals that the tail number of the plane that took off at 8:23 was N612UA. This was United Airlines Flight 175. And there is no proof that the plane that took off at 8:13 was indeed N612UA, leading to the conclusion that the pilot only pretended to fly United Airlines Flight 175.

I think the two 175s matter is closely related to what you have established in the other 175 thread: that United Airlines needed three hours or so to confirm that it was 175 that hit the South tower, much later than ATC. I have reason to believe that the airline was in contact with Flight 175 even after the South Tower crash (just working on that), so it's understandable that they hesitated to acknowledge that their plane hit the tower.

In other words: ATC was tracking the 8:14-Fl175 until the transponder went off. United tracked the 8:23-Fl175. This is my working hypothesis.

I think the two 175s matter is closely related to what you have established in the other 175 thread: that United Airlines needed three hours or so to confirm that it was 175 that hit the South tower, much later than ATC. I have reason to believe that the airline was in contact with Flight 175 even after the South Tower crash (just working on that), so it's understandable that they hesitated to acknowledge that their plane hit the tower.

In other words: ATC was tracking the 8:14-Fl175 until the transponder went off. United tracked the 8:23-Fl175. This is my working hypothesis.

This is amazing. There are previious parallels to a "twinned" aircraft issue - a 'doppelganger' you could say in German.

Woody, I know that your original research on the AA11 take off discrepancies -- that is to say, there appears to have been two different aircraft that took off out of Boston's Logan airport, one account has AA11 departure at gate B26 and one report with AA11 departing out of gate B32. Similarly there appear to be "twin" UA93 flight tracks.

Let us look at RESPONSE by United regarding UA 175 -- which is very different than the response from American Airlines about AA11

American Airlines confirmed that it's flight AA11, with Pilot John Ogonowski was hijacked and later crashed into the North Tower at 8:46am.

It is not surprising that American Airlines can make this announcement so quickly -- after all, there are multiple, redundant, means by which aircraft are tracked, communicated with, etc, from GPS satellite to voice over radio to transponder to primary radar to in fact a simple text message system. Air Traffic controllers, as well as American Airlines controllers, monitor and communicate with planes non-stop.

So it seems very odd that United Airlines is unable to declare publicly that UA 175, captained by Vic Saracini has struck the South Tower, even just a few minutes after the fact (considering that it was recognized and tracked as a possible hijack prior to 9:03 crash by NORAD, admitted to by Mike Jellinek)

Now to look at the United Airlines situation -- at 9:03 there is a second plane crash event at the WTC, into South Tower, but no one seems to be able to identify what plane. United later acknowledges that they are "worried" about two of their flights.

At some point, they acknowledge that UA93 has crashed in Pennsylvania. But this is now well after 10am, it is going on 11am!

Still no word on UA175, -- already over 150 minutes after the plane's transponder has been turned off & it deviated from flight path (the 'emergency') -- and over 120 minutes since the news of the south tower WTC crash was disseminated by CNN. (Note that UA175, even if it 'turned off transponder' could not be 'lost' to radar since primary radar signal continues to be attached to plane's radar image)

tick tock...

United makes an official statement about UA 175 being -- but they never actually say themselves that it was "lost when it was hijacked & flown into WTC2" -- they just acknowledge that 175 'has crashed', sort of a dodge.

see this timeleine11:18 a.m.: American Airlines says it has lost two planes. The airline says American Flight 11, a Boeing 767, en route from Boston to Los Angeles, and Flight 77, a Boeing 757 flying from Dulles Airport to San Francisco, had crashed.

11:26 a.m.: United Airlines announces the crash of United Flight 93 southeast of Pittsburgh.

11:59 a.m.: United Airlines confirms that Flight 175 has crashed with 56 passengers and nine crew members aboard. [but without saying where!]

So something very fishy was happening that morning at United Airlines HQ, as if certain persons were trying to get their stories straight -- clearly, United knew there were problems with UA175 from the moment that plane stopped talking to ATC, when Transponder code was changed, when aircraft significantly deviated its course. Later there was a phone call from UA175 flight attnendt to San Francisco that reported the Hijacking, and Brian Sweeney also called from the plane, i think his relatives alerted FBI or offiicals.

So, pre-9:03, there are multiple signs of big problems, possibly hijack, for UA175!

But their dispatcher, Ed Ballinger, working out of United's Operations Control in Chicago didnt seem to be told that one of his UA plane had crashed.

In fact, 18 minutes after a 9:03 plane crash into South Tower, Ed now texts "beware of cockpit intrusion" following the reports of AA11 hijack/crash. Ed had confirmed that UA175 didn't respond to his contacts and was "acting inappropriately" although how do you act inapprorpiately when in fact you ahve crashed? why was he texting this aircraft if it had already been destroyed?

The actual fate of UA 175, where it went, etc is more or less left hanging, but the eager TV media quickly fills in the details implying it was crashed into South Tower at 903am and that everyone saw that and knew that. In fact, later televised footage shows a plane that you can identify as the grey and blue United livery colors seen smashting into the tower.

But that is not what the data showed in real time on the day of 9/11/01!

What two separate accounts seem to indicate is that

1) initally it was thought that AA77 struck the South Tower, (!!) -- see the last bit of this video here which goes through AA11, AA77, UA93, and finally ends with UA175 as being lost...BBC news on 9/11/01 at 17:25 london time and

2) and that United's dispatcher and communications were trying to contact UA175 AFTER the Pentagon crash, if you carefully read the timeline implied below in quotes, and see Ed Ballinger timeline.

The clear conclusion is that United was covering up something it knew on the morning of 9/11. They were not confirming UA175 crashed into WTC. They dodged that for about three hours, and in the end at nearly NOON, simply said it had crashed, with 56 passengers on board.

If there were only ONE UA175, then United's response is as clear as mud -- how could they not know everything, immediately? Why delay til noon? What's going on? if UA 175 went off course, which it did at ? 8:45 or so, it would be tracked, followed, never lost from radar, and the ultimate radar 'ping' would place it northbound at high speed over NY Harbor. Mike Jellinek implies that NORAD was tracking UA175 with knowledge that it was a hijack, and that it was lost at 9:03 am when the south tower was struck. In fact, the two fighters launched by NORAD from Otis and "streaking towards New York" in order to try to intercept AA11 (too late) could have intercepted UA 175, which NORAD in the person of Jellinek says they were following.

If there were for some reason TWO planes both acting as UA175, then the situation is even more muddy. But the two plane possibility, if United HQ was aware of it, would make for awkward problems for United, and awkard problems take time to sort out.

QUOTE

Today, Ed Ballinger will speak to a roomful of strangers about the one subject he doesn't care to discuss: The first two hours of his shift as a flight dispatcher for United Airlines on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001.

The Arlington Heights resident and former United Airlines employee will meet with a sub-committee of the 9/11 commission in Washington, D.C., so panel members can decide whether his testimony warrants his appearance before the full commission.

Ballinger is there because he was in charge of United flights 175 and 93 when they crashed into the World Trade Center and a field near Shanksville, Pa.

Because perhaps, just perhaps, offering his story will calm the whispering thought that troubles him still: If he'd been told the full extent of what was unfolding sooner that morning, he might have saved Flight 93.

"I don't know what (the panel appearance) is going to be," he said Tuesday after arriving in the capital. "They want to know what I did and why. I've been told it's not finger pointing. It's just finding out what happened."

Part of what happened was his 44-year career at United crumbled after Sept. 11. He found it too hard emotionally to go on with his job as before.

"In my judgment, he is a vital part of the story because Ed Ballinger is the last human being to talk to (Flight 93's cockpit)," said the Wilmette Republican, whose district includes much of Arlington Heights.

"And when all is said and done, he was responsible for preventing multiple hijackings," Kirk added. "I think he probably foiled (another) hijacking."

'Beware of intrusion'

Ed Ballinger's story highlights the critical role of airline dispatchers and illustrates why they need civil service-type protections for split-second decisions they might make during future terrorist attacks, Kirk said.

Dispatchers shouldn't worry about being punished if their decisions save lives but cost their companies thousands of dollars, he said, adding he expects the 9/11 commission's final report to address this point.

"If a dispatcher warns a pilot in enough time these days, the chances of a successful hijacking go from slim to none," Kirk said.

Under federal law, dispatchers and pilots jointly control all flights that cross state lines. A pilot knows the plane's immediate environment, a dispatcher knows what's ahead.

"I have the same training as the pilot ... except the flying skills. I fly a desk, he flies the airplane," Ballinger said.

"When Sept. 11 came along, that morning, I had 16 flights taking off from the East Coast of the U.S. to the West Coast," he said. "When I sat down, these 16 flights were taking off or just getting ready to take off."

Then the first American Airlines planes struck New York and the Pentagon.

Ballinger contacted all his flights to warn them. But United Flight 175 "was not acting appropriately."

He asked Flight 175 to respond. The pilot didn't reply and Ballinger was forced to conclude he'd been compromised and that he was rogue.

By now, the situation was terribly different from previous hijackings Ballinger had handled. In two hours, he sent 122 messages.

"I was like screaming on the keyboard. I think I talked to two flights visually. The rest was all banging out short messages," he said.

Realizing what was going on, he sent all his airplanes one message: "Beware of cockpit intrusion."

"93 called me back and says, 'Hi, Ed. Confirmed.'æ"

Ballinger said he didn't wait for orders from his supervisors, or for Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta's decision to ground all flights. He immediately tried to get his pilots down on the nearest Tarmac.

"As soon as I had a grasp of what was going on ... I sent it out immediately. It was before Mineta, and even before the airlines told us to alert the crews," he said.

Dispatchers were told by superiors: Don't tell the pilots why we want them to land.

"One of the things that upset me was that they knew 45 minutes before that American Airlines had a problem. I put the story together myself (from news accounts)," Ballinger said.

"Perhaps if I had the information sooner, I might have gotten the message to 93 to bar the door."

Perhaps, but Kirk is adamant that Ballinger did save the passengers and crew of United Flight 23, which on Sept. 11 was about to depart from Newark, N.J., to Los Angeles. Kirk believes Flight 23 was going to be commandeered.

Thanks to Ballinger's quick call, the flight crew told passengers it had a mechanical problem and immediately returned to the gate.

Later, Ballinger was told six men initially wouldn't get off the plane. Later, when they did, they disappeared into the crowd, never to return. Later, authorities checked their luggage and found copies of the Qu'ran and al-Qaida instruction sheets.

I knew a guy who used to spoof the system in pursuit of dope smuggling--using 2 airplanes with the same number and paint job.

99% of credit to Woody and Team 8 plus especially JohnDoeII and Nico. And Paul Thompson. All i do is search old day-of TV coverage and transcripts and then re-post other people's stuff (!LOL!)

Spoofing the system-- on 9/11/01, at one point, it was thought that up to 22 planes were hijacked. THat means there were 22 anomalous signals on radar, or 22 real problematic planes off course, or NORDO planes, or fake radar injects, or live-fly exercise planes as part of a terror drill, or maybe a combination of some of all of the above.

I think that the information we are told about in the 9/11 commission report or in books is just the top 10% of the iceberg, its all a sort of patched-together timeline that appears plausible, while hiding 90% below the water.

What did happen wiith UA175? I dont know. How many UA175 were there? Zero? one? two? three?

The public would NEVER be allowed to hear something like this as a response from an ATC or DoD or NORAD official or 9/11 Commission testimony, i'll do my best to blend in a nice mix of possibilities so you can start to think about the sort things that were edited out of the nice linear 9/11 commission account for UA175... ...just food for thought.

Here's my made-up response from a made-up DoD spokesperson, when asked about the timeline of UA 175 (complete speculation just for the thought exercise)

DoD Official:

"Uh, we were tracking UA 175 but you see there were two or maybe three planes that appeared to be UA 175 and one of them was our counter-terror NORAD plane and maybe one was a NORAD inject so when we got word that UA 175 was a hijack we said duhh of course, its part of our anti-hijack war game based out of Stewart AFB and being coordinated in part by Booz Allen plus a secret office of the VP, in the game where the red team tries to evade pursuit and we the blue team are trying to catch them and all the same time there's a computer network attack that is part of the war game Global Guardian that has put our communications systems offline so gosh, kinda an exciting day and then while that's going on we found out that while were were simulating a hijacked off course commercial jet, why, turns out real live hijackers actually did hijack a plane and it was the same flight number UAL 175 as the one in our scenario so that was kind of a wierd coincidence but not as wierd as the fact that the same thing happened to AA11, UA93 and AA77 too, where we had multiples of each one in our system, plus, even wierder, after we were reviewing the radar tracks, first I saw the a track for AA77 flying into the WTC2 south tower at 9:03am, but then later we actually revised that and created a new radar track showing AA77 as just east of DC and made new one with one of the several UA 175 as a radar tracks as the WTC2-bound plane but we weren't allowed to comment on that until NORAD had cleared everything with United HQs and DoD so in the words of President Bush It Was an Interesting Day"

Jack, great work. As a suggestion, you might want to clarify for the loyalists what timezones you are speaking of...are they all EST in your post? I think most of us are assuming so.

That is correct, I think all timezones referenced are Eastern.

The original research that confirms there were TWO different UA175 takeoffs from boston logan on 9/11/10 is 0% mine and 100% Woody & other Team8 thinkers.

The data on UA 175 that we 'see' appears to be a selective reading of many references to possibly more than one craft tagged as UA175, whether there were two physical jets, or spoofing in the radar system, or a combination, what is clear is that the official account has more holes than a swiss cheese.

So i reposted woody's blog site with actual new finding, which is in original post above, in case someone missed it:

My personal 9/11 researcher "career" started with the detection of a duplicated "Flight 11" at Boston Logan Airport: one departing from Terminal B, Gate 32, at 7:45, the other one from Terminal B, Gate 26, somewhat later because the departure was delayed:

However, the BTS database reveals a strange discrepancy regarding the "wheels-off time" of Flight 175 - i.e. the moment when the plane lifted off from the runway. The BTS notes a wheels-off time of 8:23, which differs distinctly from the "official" wheels-off time, which is 8:14.... click for more above

you might want to clarify for the loyalists what timezones you are speaking of...are they all EST in your post? I think most of us are assuming so.

Hi guys,

While I'm not sure why this is such a widespread mistake, I'm pretty certain that September 2001 in the Eastern US would have still been Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). [Unless you lived in Arizona, like I have at times ]

The data on UA 175 that we 'see' appears to be a selective reading of many references to possibly more than one craft tagged as UA175, whether there were two physical jets, or spoofing in the radar system, or a combination, what is clear is that the official account has more holes than a swiss cheese.http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/

It looks like the 8:14-Flight 175 was tracked by ATC (until the transponder switch) and the 8:23-Flight 175 tracked by United Airlines (because plane and airline communicate via ACARS). The 8:14 is the official one, and the existence of the other one was hidden.

It looks like the 8:14-Flight 175 was tracked by ATC (until the transponder switch) and the 8:23-Flight 175 tracked by United Airlines (because plane and airline communicate via ACARS). The 8:14 is the official one, and the existence of the other one was hidden.

When the 8:14-Flt175 changed its transponder code (to 3321?) it becomes impossible to assert with 100% accuracy that that was the same physical plane as prior to transponder change (see "Northwoods" scenario with plane swap at Eglin AFB on why to worry about this..).

If the 8:23-Flt175, which took off 9 minutes later from Logan, was being tracked by United Airlines in Chicago with phone communication, then by ACARS, was this the physical plane that was used to generate the UA175 radar trace that was shown to us by media?

Why was United delaying until nearly noon that UA175 was lost or crashed, nearly three hours after the South Tower impact? All good questions

-------------------------------------ACARS can do more than just exchange text messages, I have noticed -- here's a detail that seems to indicate ACARS could send automated plane position in flight, no radar required.

The ACARS system is a patented AirCraft Addressing & Reporting SYstem used by both commercial (civilian) aircraft and possibly military. The security of ACARS is under discussion in the patent update reported.

Aircraft Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) data link is used by commercial airlines worldwide for their day to day operations. Civil Aviation Agencies use ACARS for air traffic control (ATC) over oceanic regions where radar coverage is not available. Automated position reports transmitted via ACARS permit air/traffic controllers to accurately monitor the position of aircraft. In addition, controllers can send Air Traffic Management (ATM) messages to the pilot to actively control aircraft movement. As such, ACARS has been a key contributor in reducing separation standards over the oceanic air space.

ACARS messages are transferred over open RF channels in human readable forms. Low cost, COTS equipment enables anyone to monitor and process ACARS messages. It is possible to determine aircraft type, condition, position, projected track, cargo content, and operational details of the flight by analyzing ACARS messages. Aircraft operators would like to protect this information to maintain competitive advantage, to ensure safety of flight and to reduce operational liability.

Normally, US military aircraft are required to comply with the air-traffic requirements while flying in the civil air space. Since ACARS is used for air traffic control in the South Pacific region, the US Air Force (USAF) has started to equip its air transport fleet with ACARS to satisfy civil aviation requirements. Availability of ACARS also offers additional benefit to the USAF because ACARS can be used for routine, unclassified communications, thereby preserving the capacity of military communication systems for high priority traffic. There is a long felt need for military operators to use the existing civilian ACARS system in a secure manner. If messages can be exchanged over ACARS in a secure fashion, ACARS data link will allow USAF to track its fleet in near-real time and exchange information with any aircraft worldwide, thereby improving its operational efficiency.